Pitbulls. Do they have a bad rep?

[Ziggurat]

There's a ban on... skunks? I think I've heard just about everything.

Have you heard a man eat his own head?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.......What in FSM's name are you all thinking??

I'm just wondering who ' you all ' is ?

Who in this thread is calling for the elimination of the breed ?

The thread is about their ( bad ) reputation, and even the misinformation provides insight to that reputation ..

 

[technoextreme]

And you rarely run across the headline "Labrador retriever kills child", even though they've been the most popular dog in much of the western world for decades.

Did you read what was posted above about the origins of bull terriers, what they were bred for, 'gameness' and so on?

Thank Captain Obvious. I salute you in pointing out that a gun dog rarely mutilates stuff because you know that would entirely defeat the purpose of a gun dog if it *********** ripped to shreds the thing it was meant to retrieve.

 

[Cleon]

Who in this thread is calling for the elimination of the breed ?

Cainkane1, rwguinn, and lionking, and that's just from looking at the first page of this thread. I'm not including the others who seem to agree but haven't explicitly said so.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Who in this thread is calling for the elimination of the breed ?

I support restricting ownership of pit bulls.

I would not be particularly concerned if the breed vanished or opposed to some measures that expedited this vanishing.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

A History of the American Pit Bull Terrier Amenable to GRENME:


Back in the day, Irish and British immigrants to America brought with them a number of dogs from the British Isles. These dogs were the result of cross-breedings between various terrier dogs and bull dogs. They breeders just wanted a dog that was athletic and powerful and had the 'attributes of a warrior' just because.

These dogs were bred for 'gameness', or tenacity. The characteristic of 'gameness' and the fact that this characteristic is even called 'being game' had absolutely nothing to do with the dog's tenacity in the very popular sport of dogfighting, they were just looking for a dog that wouldn't quit no matter what! This was so that when the dog was brought into the family home as a pet or licker of kittens that it would just keep on loving and licking and licking and loving no matter what happened.

For extra love training, they used to keep the dogs in pits full of rats (see previous historical comment.) Since they kept the puppies in these pits they decided to call the dogs 'pit bull-terriers'. This had nothing to do with dogfights and other animal blood sports being held in pits, this is just an unfortunate coincidence which has been exploited by misguided layabouts with nothing better to do than mount misinformation campaigns agaist certain breeds of dogs for no other reason than personal dislike of dogs in general.

ANYWAYS, it was only AFTER THESE LOVE MACHINES HAD BEEN BRED FOR GENERATIONS that mean dogfighters BRIEFLY got their hands on some of them and FORCED THEM TO FIGHT. In fact, the dogfighters had a really hard time getting the pitbulls to fight because they had been bred for love and tenderness, but dogfighters are SO MEAN THAT THEY FOUND THE GENTLEST, MOST LOVING DOGS THEY COULD GET THEIR HANDS ON AND MADE THEM FIGHT.

 

[Furcifer]

Pit bulls have not "been bred to be vicious, aggressive and deadly" to human beings. In fact, they have been bred to be precisely the opposite to people. Again, I quote: "APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children. Because most APBTs exhibit some level of dog aggression and because of its powerful physique, the APBT requires an owner who will carefully socialize and obedience train the dog. The breed’s natural agility makes it one of the most capable canine climbers so good fencing is a must for this breed. The APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable. This breed does very well in performance events because of its high level of intelligence and its willingness to work."

A pit bull attacking a human out of aggression is (and has been for a century) uncharacteristic of the breed.

^this

I didn't read the entire thread before posting but I see you have it under control. Everything you've posted is entirely consistent with what I know about dogs, breeds and pit bulls in particular.

It's only within the last 25 years the pitter has got the bad wrap. Before that they were common as family dogs. Unregistered breeders have damaged the bred to some extent. Most people couldn't tell a pitbull from a white boxer. Trust me, I had a white boxer.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

There isn't a domesticated dog on this planet that can't be trained. It's a matter of establishing dominance. My Great Dane was terrified of cats and didn't want to have anything to do with them. His was a big and clumsy pup, we had to be careful with him around cats because if he decided to shake paws with a cat, well that was the end of the cat. By the time he was 1 he didn't want to have anything to do with smaller animals, not because he was actually terrified, but because he didn't want to get into trouble. As soon as he saw them he would literally "high step" his way out of the room and hide.
Pit Bulls can be trained like any other dog. The ones that are raised properly are some of the best family dogs. But the owners have to expose them to children, other people, other dogs, cats, birds, fish, squirrels etc. The ones you hear about "snapping" are the ones that don't get exposed to cats, then suddenly get confronted by one and go "terrier" reverting back to their breeding instincts. That's not a problem with a herding dog like a Border Collie, but it can be a problem with a terrier. Any terrier, not just pit bulls.
Then there's the owners that either shouldn't have dogs, or should know to keep their dog on a very short leash. They train the aggression into the dogs, whether for fighting or security or just to chase the neighbors cat or squirrels out of the yard. That aggression, especially in a terrier can come out at any time. That's the owners fault for encouraging or allowing the behavior and not exerting their dominance.
One of the biggest mistakes I've seen people make is allowing a dog to get territorial over its food or water. They assume that's natural dog behavior and allow it. Then some 3 yr old wanders over to the dog as it's eating and gets bit. Dogs don't have territory, they don't have bowls or toys or food. They "get" what we humans give them. Anything that smells like a human is higher on the pecking order than the dog.
Too many pitbull owners don't put that much effort into training a family dog, and while that may work out alright with other breeds like a lab, it tends to backfire with terriers. They allow the dog to be aggressive at the door because it's a bad neighborhood and they want a guard dog. That's fine until that one time someone walks in unexpected, or the dog forgets where the door ends and someone gets bit, or the dogs running the street protecting the front door.
Sorry to rant but I've seen this a million times, and yes pitbulls are responsible but ONLY because the owners didn't train them properly.

Alright great so if I read this correctly, because of its terrier lineage, teh pitbull has some characteristics that can make it more aggressive than other dog breeds (the example given was a labrador) if not properly trained.

And, being somewhat more... stout... than, say, a jack russel or a yorkshire, the pitbull can perhaps be more dangerous than other terriers, no?

 

[GreNME]

You're contradicting yourself here.

Betcha I'm not, and you're arguing from ignorance. Let's have a look:

The herding dogs still have herding instincts.
We agree on this.

I say the fighting dogs still have fighting instincts.

You (alternately) say that they were not bred as fighting dogs, or that their use as loving pets and gentle sniffers of daffodils has erased their fighting instincts.

Nope. I'm saying that your claim that they're "fighting dogs" is false in that just because some have been used for fighting does not make the origin of the breed one specifically for fighting. They were hog and bull baiters predominately, house pets second, with a notable number historically used for fighting. However, so have Staffordshire bull terrier and the American Staffordshire terrier, among several other dogs-- including mastiffs, sheepdogs, and other large breeds (example)-- and yet none of them are mislabeled as "fighting dogs" along with pit bulls as a breed. Using your logic I could claim that Irish wolfhounds are "war dogs" because Celts sometimes brought their dogs with them when going to battle, but it ignores the purpose-driven breeding behind their type and is more based on some emotion-laden opinion rather than any actual basis in fact.

And unsurprisingly, you were arguing from ignorance. Go figure.

Why, pray tell, did they need such a dog?

Such a dog as the pit bull? Because they wanted the drive of a bull dog with the tenacity of a terrier, which is precisely what the result was with the APBT. You're trying to go further and attribute more purpose without providing a shred of actual evidence (still waiting on evidence of human-aggressiveness bred into them, BTW).

Ah, so your source agrees that the breed existed before it found a use as a catch dog, a hunter, and a gentle family companion and overall docile frolicker in meadows of clover blossoms.

I wonder why it was originally bred...?

As a bait dog (really, if you need this explained I can do so), and for hunting boar, while still able to be a family pet. My source is the United Kennel Club, which has held the breed standard for pit bulls since the end of the 19th century-- if you really want to play a stupid pissing match over authority, feel free to tell us all what your sources on the breed information have to offer in terms of expertise.

Tell me GrenME, have ANY dogs EVER been specifically bred for fighting in pits?

Plenty of dogs have been bred specifically for fighting (really, your use of "pits" is as blatantly ridiculous as the earlier use of "gameness). There are no UKC or AKC registered breeds of dog that were developed specifically for fighting. You seem determined to conflate the two.

You know, at the end of the day whether the APBT was bred for dogfighting (the truth) or just used in dogfighting (your imagined reality) is somewhat moot. Regardless of the origins of these characteristics, the dog has characteristics that make it arguably the best game dog in the world.

And oddly enough you make these claims about their origins and are still unable to provide a shred of evidence to support it, while all I have to do is refer to the kennel clubs who have had them listed for over a century.

Saying something is "true" does not make it so, no matter how many times you assert it. I've provided evidence while all you've provided is fraudulent data, argument from ignorance, and selection bias.

Also, I assume you demand that GSDs, border collies, Aussies, and other herding breeds stop being used as pets and get back in the fields, right?

Well, I think those dogs generally need more exercise than they get in an urban environment... collies especially. But the characteristics that make a dog a good herder of sheep or cattle are quite different from the inherent characteristics that make a dog an excellent fighter.

You're making up descriptions of characteristics as you go, and seem to have no concept of cognitive dissonance you're displaying. You can't even provide any proof that pits are somehow inherently better fighters-- which could be disproven in an instant by taking the fighting dogs in the US over to Afghanistan, where the dogs used there are mostly giant breeds that would eat the pit bulls-- yet you're unwilling to apply the same faulty logic you're displaying regarding what you continue to (incorrectly) assert pit bulls are bred for to other dogs who were indeed specifically bred for purpose-driven tasks. Since you can't even continue to claim Clifton's fraudulent report as evidence that pit bulls are somehow more represented in attacks-- well, you could but you'd really continue to look like a Truther then-- you've got no leg to stand on outside of dog fighting rings to substantiate your "fighting dog" premise, and as I've pointed out the pit bull is no more a "fighting dog" in any inherent sense than a GSD is a "police dog" in any inherent sense. People take dogs with certain qualities and use them in ways they were not originally bred for; sometimes that's beneficial (like police dogs and bomb sniffers and protection/guard dogs), and sometimes it's detrimental (like dog fighting). Nothing you've presented or asserted so far has given any evidence showing otherwise.

Why can't you agree that herding breeds need to go back into the fields? It's exactly the same logic you're displaying, and you're performing mental gymnastics to avoid it.

Chihuahuas should be removed from pet homes and be put back into service as vermin hunters, right? And deerhounds shouldn't be in homes, they should be out with deer and other game hunters, correct?

nothing wrong with either of those uses of animals, though cats are better at catching mice than dogs IMO.

That's because you're arguing from ignorance in thinking that "vermin" only means mice. In fact, Chihuahuas were bred for the same type of tenacity (or, in your parlance, "gameness") that other terriers were bred for, particularly in chasing vermin down into their holes and flushing them out.

Again, even if you don't specifically buy a terrier to hunt weasels, the weasel hunting instincts of a terrier are much less dangerous if they ever bubble to the surface than are the fighting instincts of the APBT or the war-like instincts of an Akita or the murderous instincts of a Fila Brasileiro.

The terms "fighting" and "war-like" and "murderous" in your descriptions of those dogs' dispositions shows just how much woo you're applying here and just how little you understand behavior. Just like pit bulls are not inherently fighters, Akitas are not inherently "war-like" and Filas are not "murderous" dogs. All you're doing is demanding I take your emotional appeals seriously instead of relying on experience, knowledge, and the history of the breed.

 

[GreNME]

A History of the American Pit Bull Terrier Amenable to GRENME:


Back in the day, Irish and British immigrants to America brought with them a number of dogs from the British Isles. These dogs were the result of cross-breedings between various terrier dogs and bull dogs. They breeders just wanted a dog that was athletic and powerful and had the 'attributes of a warrior' just because.

These dogs were bred for 'gameness', or tenacity. The characteristic of 'gameness' and the fact that this characteristic is even called 'being game' had absolutely nothing to do with the dog's tenacity in the very popular sport of dogfighting, they were just looking for a dog that wouldn't quit no matter what! This was so that when the dog was brought into the family home as a pet or licker of kittens that it would just keep on loving and licking and licking and loving no matter what happened.

For extra love training, they used to keep the dogs in pits full of rats (see previous historical comment.) Since they kept the puppies in these pits they decided to call the dogs 'pit bull-terriers'. This had nothing to do with dogfights and other animal blood sports being held in pits, this is just an unfortunate coincidence which has been exploited by misguided layabouts with nothing better to do than mount misinformation campaigns agaist certain breeds of dogs for no other reason than personal dislike of dogs in general.

ANYWAYS, it was only AFTER THESE LOVE MACHINES HAD BEEN BRED FOR GENERATIONS that mean dogfighters BRIEFLY got their hands on some of them and FORCED THEM TO FIGHT. In fact, the dogfighters had a really hard time getting the pitbulls to fight because they had been bred for love and tenderness, but dogfighters are SO MEAN THAT THEY FOUND THE GENTLEST, MOST LOVING DOGS THEY COULD GET THEIR HANDS ON AND MADE THEM FIGHT.

Alright great so if I read this correctly, because of its terrier lineage, teh pitbull has some characteristics that can make it more aggressive than other dog breeds (the example given was a labrador) if not properly trained.

Almost (you're so close to intellectual honesty, yet so far!). Their lineage can lead to pit bulls displaying dog aggression when not socialized. The reality is that this is a concern in all dogs, but slightly more so in some breeds (not simply using groupings like terriers).

And, being somewhat more... stout... than, say, a jack russel or a yorkshire, the pitbull can perhaps be more dangerous than other terriers, no?

And my German shepherd, being larger, stronger, and faster, can perhaps be more dangerous than a pit bull, no? And a mastiff, being larger, stronger, and with a bite nearly three times as strong as that of a pit bull, can perhaps be more dangerous than a pit bull, no? And my Irish wolfhounds, being larger, stronger, and faster than pit bulls, can perhaps be considered more dangerous as well, no?

Using the criteria you've developed for advocating banning, why not ban all dogs that are stronger and larger than pit bulls?

 

[GlennB]

I can stop a pit bull attack without a break stick, and have done so in the past. It's all about understanding how the dogs focus and how to break that focus without hurting the dogs involved or yourself. Break sticks are a convenience tool specifically designed for the type of jaws of bully breeds, they're not a requisite.

Having lived around, and kept, Labs for the last 40 years, why is is that I have never experienced - as you have with PBs- a requirement to stop a Lab attack? A Lab that gets in a fight with another 'normal' dog will win it or lose it quickly. At worst there will be torn flesh, more likely it's typical doggie 'handbags at dawn' with a lot of snarling, snapping and a rapid submission by one party.

And I have yet to see a 'break stick' specifically designed for a Labrador jaw. That would be because Lab owners have no need for them.

As the dog behaviour expert in the Animal Cops Houston episode pointed out - "the trouble with these dogs is they don't let go". Which is why you need break sticks or your special expertise, a kind unlikely to be possessed by the vast majority of PB owners.

 

[GreNME]

^this

I didn't read the entire thread before posting but I see you have it under control. Everything you've posted is entirely consistent with what I know about dogs, breeds and pit bulls in particular.

It's only within the last 25 years the pitter has got the bad wrap. Before that they were common as family dogs. Unregistered breeders have damaged the bred to some extent. Most people couldn't tell a pitbull from a white boxer. Trust me, I had a white boxer.

I've only posted The Pit Bull Placebo two three times in this thread, which says the same about the relative newness of the pit bull demonization. Back in the 1970's it was Doberman pincers who were demonized like pit bulls are now. Before that, the German Shepherd, the bulldog, the Newfie, and at one point even the collie were considered "dangerous breeds" over the course of the past century. And in every case, the conventional wisdom was that removing that breed of dogs from the population would somehow (magical thinking) mitigate the problem to which the "dangerous breed" was attributed, usually involving violence or attacks. Nevermind that actual statistics show bites and attacks have gone down over the past three decades (linky, because as much as the media has sensationalized the "epidemic" one would think it's practically an everyday occurrence.

 

[GreNME]

Having lived around, and kept, Labs for the last 40 years, why is is that I have never experienced - as you have with PBs- a requirement to stop a Lab attack?

Because

1. Anecdotes do not equal data.
2. You apparently have not spent much time with Labs who are not your own or familiar to you.
3. You have very little experience with dog fights (not as a sport, as in altercations) in general.
4. You've been lucky.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Nope. I'm saying that your claim that they're "fighting dogs" is false in that just because some have been used for fighting does not make the origin of the breed one specifically for fighting.

Staffordshire terriers, bullterriers, turkish kangals, dogo argentinos, tosa inus...there are plenty of dogs that have been bred specifically to be fighting dogs.

and yet none of them are mislabeled as "fighting dogs" along with pit bulls as a breed.

Actually I don't think that would be an incorrect label for any of the breeds mentioned above.

Using your logic I could claim that Irish wolfhounds are "war dogs" because Celts sometimes brought their dogs with them when going to battle, but it ignores the purpose-driven breeding behind their type and is more based on some emotion-laden opinion rather than any actual basis in fact.

The wolfhounds were primarily hunting dogs. For sure there have been dogs that were bred specifically for war. The Akita was a war dog. So were the rottweilers' predecessors.

And unsurprisingly, you were arguing from ignorance. Go figure.

lol

Such a dog as the pit bull? Because they wanted the drive of a bull dog with the tenacity of a terrier, which is precisely what the result was with the APBT. You're trying to go further and attribute more purpose without providing a shred of actual evidence (still waiting on evidence of human-aggressiveness bred into them, BTW).

As a bait dog (really, if you need this explained I can do so), and for hunting boar, while still able to be a family pet.

Lol

So they called it the 'pit bull-terrier' rather than the 'boar bull-terrier'.

lol

My source is the United Kennel Club, which has held the breed standard for pit bulls since the end of the 19th century-- if you really want to play a stupid pissing match over authority, feel free to tell us all what your sources on the breed information have to offer in terms of expertise.

Didn't another kennel club refuse to recognize the breed due to its association with dogfighting?

Plenty of dogs have been bred specifically for fighting (really, your use of "pits" is as blatantly ridiculous as the earlier use of "gameness).

Fascinating.

So now you're saying that being 'game' has nothing to do with dogfighting, that the word itself is completely unaffiliated with any origins in dogfighting.

There are no UKC or AKC registered breeds of dog that were developed specifically for fighting. You seem determined to conflate the two.

Yes there are. The bullterrier is one example.

And oddly enough you make these claims about their origins and are still unable to provide a shred of evidence to support it, while all I have to do is refer to the kennel clubs who have had them listed for over a century.

What would you accept as valid evidence that a breed of dog had been bred for fighting?

Saying something is "true" does not make it so, no matter how many times you assert it. I've provided evidence while all you've provided is fraudulent data, argument from ignorance, and selection bias.

Tell me again the story of the rat pits.

You're making up descriptions of characteristics as you go, and seem to have no concept of cognitive dissonance you're displaying. You can't even provide any proof that pits are somehow inherently better fighters--

Yes, yes, rather plausible assertion Grenme. Pitbulls are likely the principal dog used in dog fights in north america because they are terrible fighters.

Since you can't even continue to claim Clifton's fraudulent report as evidence that pit bulls are somehow more represented in attacks--

Yeah I stopped quoting that report before I even heard about it in this thread.

Good luck chasing that squirrel.

Why can't you agree that herding breeds need to go back into the fields? It's exactly the same logic you're displaying, and you're performing mental gymnastics to avoid it.

Mental gymnastics? I haven't even broken a sweat.

This is a no-brainer.

Go back and read what I wrote, and then we can proceed if you still have a problem.

That's because you're arguing from ignorance in thinking that "vermin" only means mice. In fact, Chihuahuas were bred for the same type of tenacity (or, in your parlance, "gameness") that other terriers were bred for, particularly in chasing vermin down into their holes and flushing them out.

I was thinking of an urban setting, since you started talking about fields. In the city the only vermin I can imagine a chihuahua taking on would be a mouse- a raccoon would kill it.

The terms "fighting" and "war-like" and "murderous" in your descriptions of those dogs' dispositions shows just how much woo you're applying here and just how little you understand behavior. Just like pit bulls are not inherently fighters, Akitas are not inherently "war-like" and Filas are not "murderous" dogs. All you're doing is demanding I take your emotional appeals seriously instead of relying on experience, knowledge, and the history of the breed.

Nope, all I'm asking you to do is admit that after centuries of selectively breeding dogs for certain inherent characteristics, different breeds of dogs have certain inherent characteristics. It doesn't mean that all filas are dangerous, but it does mean that a fila is more likely to be dangerous than is a great dane.

 

[Furcifer]

Alright great so if I read this correctly, because of its terrier lineage, teh pitbull has some characteristics that can make it more aggressive than other dog breeds (the example given was a labrador) if not properly trained.

And, being somewhat more... stout... than, say, a jack russel or a yorkshire, the pitbull can perhaps be more dangerous than other terriers, no?

Part terrier mind you. With small animals, rats being what terriers were bred for. That includes cats and squirrels.

Yes, there's potential for inflicting more damage. Dangerous though? To who? To you? To a rat? What's "danger" getting killed or getting bit?

Getting bit? Probably a Jack Russel, although poodles bite everything they see. Poodles are dangerous if you don't like getting bit. I won't turn my back on a poodle or a goose.

If your only worried about getting killed, pitbull. Chances are however you're going to get bit by a poodle 100 times before a pitbull kills you.

Now if you're worried about getting you skull crushed, stay away from Rotties. They've got a bite force about 1.5 times that of a pitbull (if memory serves)

Honestly though I'm not afraid of getting killed by a dog. I'm afraid of getting bit. A Jack Russel will bite you and draw blood. They've got tiny mouths and sharp teeth. For tearing apart rats.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Almost (you're so close to intellectual honesty, yet so far!). Their lineage can lead to pit bulls displaying dog aggression when not socialized. The reality is that this is a concern in all dogs, but slightly more so in some breeds (not simply using groupings like terriers).

LOL

Only SLIGHTLY MORE SO!

AHahahahahaha oh man.

So after years and years of breeding dogs for specific characteristics there is only a slightly elevated chance for aggression in the dogs that were selectively bred for aggression.

MAN PEOPLE SURE SUCK AT THIS BREEDING DOMESTICATED ANIMALS RACKET.

And my German shepherd, being larger, stronger, and faster, can perhaps be more dangerous than a pit bull, no? And a mastiff, being larger, stronger, and with a bite nearly three times as strong as that of a pit bull, can perhaps be more dangerous than a pit bull, no? And my Irish wolfhounds, being larger, stronger, and faster than pit bulls, can perhaps be considered more dangerous as well, no?

Perhaps you shepherd can be more dangerous. In fact, I would rather have to face a pitbull that had been trained to kill than a german shepherd that had been trained to kill (rather than just catch by the arm, for example).

The question is, if you dind't train yoru GSD to be aggressive, and you didn't train your APBT to be aggressive, which would I rather have my children around?

Using the criteria you've developed for advocating banning, why not ban all dogs that are stronger and larger than pit bulls?

I don't think Fila brasileros or presa canarios or dogo argentinos should be in cities, and people should at a minimum require a license to own these kinds of dogs.

I don't think the same applies to german shepherds.

As someone who seems to pride themselves on their knowledge of dog breeds I'm sure you can understand why this is; though as someone whose girlfriend apparently owns a pitbull I can understand why you're being obstinate here.

Cheers,
CS

 

[GreNME]

And I have yet to see a 'break stick' specifically designed for a Labrador jaw. That would be because Lab owners have no need for them.

As the dog behaviour expert in the Animal Cops Houston episode pointed out - "the trouble with these dogs is they don't let go". Which is why you need break sticks or your special expertise, a kind unlikely to be possessed by the vast majority of PB owners.

Nothing special about how to break a pit free from a bite. You do have to remain calm while doing it, though, and as with breaking any breed of dog up there's a risk of getting bit yourself. No stick is going to take away that risk though.

 

[Furcifer]

Having lived around, and kept, Labs for the last 40 years, why is is that I have never experienced - as you have with PBs- a requirement to stop a Lab attack? A Lab that gets in a fight with another 'normal' dog will win it or lose it quickly. At worst there will be torn flesh, more likely it's typical doggie 'handbags at dawn' with a lot of snarling, snapping and a rapid submission by one party.

And I have yet to see a 'break stick' specifically designed for a Labrador jaw. That would be because Lab owners have no need for them.

As the dog behaviour expert in the Animal Cops Houston episode pointed out - "the trouble with these dogs is they don't let go". Which is why you need break sticks or your special expertise, a kind unlikely to be possessed by the vast majority of PB owners.

I believe that's the "bull" in them. if memory serves, bulldogs were bred to bite and hold the lip of a bull, the under bite specific so the bulldog could hold the bull and breath.

 

[Furcifer]

Sorry, my bad for the generalization on "terriers". Obviously that tenacity to hunt and kill small animals has been bred out of some of the terriers. If we are going to nit pick it's within breeds of terriers.
The last time a pitbull was bred with a killer terrier was a long time ago. What's left is an underlying instinct. These underlying instincts are part of what makes purebred dogs predictable. You won't find a Jack Russel that likes to sleep all the time and sit in front of the fireplace.

 

[GreNME]

LOL

Only SLIGHTLY MORE SO!

AHahahahahaha oh man.

So after years and years of breeding dogs for specific characteristics there is only a slightly elevated chance for aggression in the dogs that were selectively bred for aggression.

MAN PEOPLE SURE SUCK AT THIS BREEDING DOMESTICATED ANIMALS RACKET.

And you must be more right than I am because you're USING ALL CAPS!

Do you understand what dog aggression is? I don't think you understand that, and you're conflating it with "aggression toward anything that moves" with regard to pit bulls. And yes: only slightly because while there are many breeds who seem to naturally have more disposition toward being social, there are equally many breeds to whom active participatory socialization is recommended early on to avoid dog aggression. All you're doing is ignoring the specifics of what I'm saying and grasping on to mis-application of words like "aggression" without making sure to understand that it's not "aggression toward people" but "aggression at other dogs they don't know."

Perhaps you shepherd can be more dangerous. In fact, I would rather have to face a pitbull that had been trained to kill than a german shepherd that had been trained to kill (rather than just catch by the arm, for example).

The question is, if you dind't train yoru GSD to be aggressive, and you didn't train your APBT to be aggressive, which would I rather have my children around?

I wouldn't let you near any of my dogs with the type of ignorance you're displaying. However, if you were to ask me which I'd be more comfortable approaching without foreknowledge of them, I'd say the pit bull is the safer bet because they're naturally more human-friendly even to strangers. Of course, since you're completely ignoring the breed standard and anything by any kennel club or breed authority, it's understandable why you'd react the way you would (ignorance).

I don't think Fila brasileros or presa canarios or dogo argentinos should be in cities, and people should at a minimum require a license to own these kinds of dogs.

I don't think the same applies to german shepherds.

You're backpedaling and displaying more cognitive dissonance. Basically, the impression you've just given me with this nonsense is that if a dog resembles a pit bull you don't want it in cities or around people, but if it resembles Rin Tin Tin then your insipid criteria doesn't apply.

As someone who seems to pride themselves on their knowledge of dog breeds I'm sure you can understand why this is; though as someone whose girlfriend apparently owns a pitbull I can understand why you're being obstinate here.

Awesome: when all else fails, it comes down to a personal attack.

My girlfriend doesn't own a pit bull. She has Irish wolfhounds and a greyhound. In fact, neither of us have ever owned a pit bull. But your failed attempt at ad hominem is noted.

My pride in knowing dog behavior doesn't hinge on breed, and the more I learn the more I find that attributions to behavior on a breed-specific basis are less and less based in fact and more based in the type of emotional woo you're displaying quite clearly.